I would recommend reading the first part of this continuation if you already have not.
On the subject of The economy:
I am going to have to break this up in a lot of smaller pieces, so let us start with regulations.
Most Republicans are anti-regulation and it looks like most Democrats are control freaks.
I of course have the extremely logical view of "You should regulate what needs to be regulated and regulate as much as needed to be regulated." I suppose many people feel the same way but differ as to the "what" that needs to be regulated and "how much" is adequate. Obviously we can not have companies just pouring toxic chemicals into lakes, rivers, landfills, my mouth , and at least for me anti monopolies makes sense(more on that later) everyone agrees that price fixing for anything is bad.
So on one side you have Socialism and on the other Capitalism(better, Free Market) With a completely free market there would be no government, everything would be private, including the military and police. In pure Socialism 100% of everything is decided by the government. I firmly believe that neither extreme could function for humans. So how do we decide where on the scale we should put ourselves? I think we should look at what are we trying to produce. I would like to produce Justice and efficiency(lack of wastefulness in, time, material, labor, funds, etc.) Obviously the means to fund this is by taxes. But that leaves out so many things that they tax us for, maybe not as much as you expect. For; to accomplish Justice you need things like roads, to be efficient, I support the idea of public schools.
Some things that do not fall under my two category are, public funding for arts, I just do not see it as necessary government subsidy, I feel that there are more than enough people to privately fund the arts. Of course there are the different departments that would need funding, there would still be the DMV, Wildlife agencies, etc. So from a macro perspective it would look very similar to how things are now, and I think that is because for most ideas the best one usually rises to the top, at least partially. The problem, real problem with any governing body is corruption, those in power taking advantage to make their lives better. Theoretically a form of Socialism(not pure socialism) would be better than free market if there was no corruption, it would have the best people to decide what is best for everyone and they would not take the best anything for themselves. There would be one car company, one phone company, one anything company, and it would all be Government Inc. Everyone would get the best phone, computer, car, etc. for whatever purpose they needed it. Sadly history has proven that Socialism is impossible because people are evil, and most forms come with the government telling you where to live and work, what to eat, who to shoot. (I haven't thought of anything else specific that gets funded but shouldn't yet)
With this ground work I can move on to recent happenings in the economy with recession. So in the deregulated free market we had some major finacial cornerstones basicly fail, along with a few other things that failed, and the government bailed them out. Unfortunately the bailing out of them is a form of socialism that does not work well with the free market aspect. You can not have your cake and eat it too, and you made your bed, now you get to "lie" in it. Were they too big to fail?? No I say, but they have their hands in too many politicians pockets to fail. I think it is obvious that both sides of the aisles make their decisions( by that I mean get their decisions made by) the major contributors that get them elected. The evidence is obvious by the way the system works, maybe you don't see it yet because no one pointed it out, but now you are reading this and you will start noticing.
What does all this mean, well we are not really in a Free Market or Socialist market, but a oligarchical business government, where politicians gain power by 'entities with money' and most decisions are made based on the investors interests with the remaining details hammered out by Free Market or Socialist ideals. With this form of government only the investors win. The occupy people don't realize this, most people don't, I think if they went after the problem which is the system they would have a lot more success. It is not that companies are bad, or that people shouldn't be rich, The system however shouldn't be where they get make up all the rules to the games and we play by them, it should be that the people figure out the best rules and they play by them.
For a side note while we are on the subject of Occupy wall street, most of them are bitter, jaded, delusional. How did anyone get money?? well they had something of worth, whether it be, Gold, Labor, an Idea, Money, Land, etc. and they traded it for it a profit, and kept trading it, or creating other forms of something that was of worth diversifying their ability to create profit and they didn't lose more than they gained. They passed down their profit, and/or the ability to make profit. Somehow some people were not born into wealth and may have had a limited ability to make a profit, but over all wealth didn't just pick sides, it was a long process of smart/lucky people gaining wealth from the dumb/unlucky. When you boil it all down no one forced Millions of Americans to give money to a few Americans making them rich in the process, they did it daily little by little, every time they went to McDonalds, Wal Mart, and bought the newest version of Windows.
So to summarize where do I stand, well there needs to be a lot of reform in how our elected officials create legislature and after that over time the proper balance of Free Market and Socialism will happen naturally.
On the subject of The economy:
I am going to have to break this up in a lot of smaller pieces, so let us start with regulations.
Most Republicans are anti-regulation and it looks like most Democrats are control freaks.
I of course have the extremely logical view of "You should regulate what needs to be regulated and regulate as much as needed to be regulated." I suppose many people feel the same way but differ as to the "what" that needs to be regulated and "how much" is adequate. Obviously we can not have companies just pouring toxic chemicals into lakes, rivers, landfills, my mouth , and at least for me anti monopolies makes sense(more on that later) everyone agrees that price fixing for anything is bad.
So on one side you have Socialism and on the other Capitalism(better, Free Market) With a completely free market there would be no government, everything would be private, including the military and police. In pure Socialism 100% of everything is decided by the government. I firmly believe that neither extreme could function for humans. So how do we decide where on the scale we should put ourselves? I think we should look at what are we trying to produce. I would like to produce Justice and efficiency(lack of wastefulness in, time, material, labor, funds, etc.) Obviously the means to fund this is by taxes. But that leaves out so many things that they tax us for, maybe not as much as you expect. For; to accomplish Justice you need things like roads, to be efficient, I support the idea of public schools.
Some things that do not fall under my two category are, public funding for arts, I just do not see it as necessary government subsidy, I feel that there are more than enough people to privately fund the arts. Of course there are the different departments that would need funding, there would still be the DMV, Wildlife agencies, etc. So from a macro perspective it would look very similar to how things are now, and I think that is because for most ideas the best one usually rises to the top, at least partially. The problem, real problem with any governing body is corruption, those in power taking advantage to make their lives better. Theoretically a form of Socialism(not pure socialism) would be better than free market if there was no corruption, it would have the best people to decide what is best for everyone and they would not take the best anything for themselves. There would be one car company, one phone company, one anything company, and it would all be Government Inc. Everyone would get the best phone, computer, car, etc. for whatever purpose they needed it. Sadly history has proven that Socialism is impossible because people are evil, and most forms come with the government telling you where to live and work, what to eat, who to shoot. (I haven't thought of anything else specific that gets funded but shouldn't yet)
With this ground work I can move on to recent happenings in the economy with recession. So in the deregulated free market we had some major finacial cornerstones basicly fail, along with a few other things that failed, and the government bailed them out. Unfortunately the bailing out of them is a form of socialism that does not work well with the free market aspect. You can not have your cake and eat it too, and you made your bed, now you get to "lie" in it. Were they too big to fail?? No I say, but they have their hands in too many politicians pockets to fail. I think it is obvious that both sides of the aisles make their decisions( by that I mean get their decisions made by) the major contributors that get them elected. The evidence is obvious by the way the system works, maybe you don't see it yet because no one pointed it out, but now you are reading this and you will start noticing.
What does all this mean, well we are not really in a Free Market or Socialist market, but a oligarchical business government, where politicians gain power by 'entities with money' and most decisions are made based on the investors interests with the remaining details hammered out by Free Market or Socialist ideals. With this form of government only the investors win. The occupy people don't realize this, most people don't, I think if they went after the problem which is the system they would have a lot more success. It is not that companies are bad, or that people shouldn't be rich, The system however shouldn't be where they get make up all the rules to the games and we play by them, it should be that the people figure out the best rules and they play by them.
For a side note while we are on the subject of Occupy wall street, most of them are bitter, jaded, delusional. How did anyone get money?? well they had something of worth, whether it be, Gold, Labor, an Idea, Money, Land, etc. and they traded it for it a profit, and kept trading it, or creating other forms of something that was of worth diversifying their ability to create profit and they didn't lose more than they gained. They passed down their profit, and/or the ability to make profit. Somehow some people were not born into wealth and may have had a limited ability to make a profit, but over all wealth didn't just pick sides, it was a long process of smart/lucky people gaining wealth from the dumb/unlucky. When you boil it all down no one forced Millions of Americans to give money to a few Americans making them rich in the process, they did it daily little by little, every time they went to McDonalds, Wal Mart, and bought the newest version of Windows.
So to summarize where do I stand, well there needs to be a lot of reform in how our elected officials create legislature and after that over time the proper balance of Free Market and Socialism will happen naturally.
No comments:
Post a Comment